PreprintCited by 1Gender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsWork-Family Balance Challenges

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

여성의 경제활동참여와 자녀수와의 관계:직장 유형을 중심으로 (Sectoral Differences in the Relationship between Employment and Fertility Among Married Female)

Open access
Shin, Jaeun·2022·SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract

Korean Abstract: 본 연구는 기혼 여성의 경제활동이 총 자녀수, 둘째아 여부, 추가 출산 의향, 이상자녀수와 실제 자녀수 차이에 미치는 영향을 직장 유형을 중심으로 실증 분석하였다. 전국출산력 가족보건복지 실태조사 2009~2018년 자료를 합동 횡단면으로 구축하고, 개인 및 가구의 인구사회학적 특성, 경제적 요인, 가치관 요인을 통제 변수로 활용하여 포아송 및 이항 로지스틱 모형 분석을 시행한 결과, 기혼 여성의 취업, 특히 민간 기업에 취업한 경우 미취업대비 총 자녀수에 통계적으로 유의한 부의 영향이 있었다. 공공부문 취업과 미취업간에는둘째아 출산 여부에 차이가 없었고, 정부기관 취업은 다른 부문 취업 대비 총 자녀수와 둘째아 출산에 정의 영향이 있었다. 자녀 및 전통적 부부 역할에 대한 부정적 태도는 총 자녀수에 부의 영향이 있었다. 평균처리효과 추가 분석 결과 공공부문 취업은 민간 부문 취업 대비 총 자녀수 및 둘째아 출산에 정의 영향이 있었고 다른 부문 취업 대비 정부기관 취업의 경우에도 동일한 결과가 나타났다. 이는 기혼 여성의 취업과 자녀수와의 관계는 직장 유형에 따라 다르게 나타나며, 고용안정성, 일가정 양립 지원 제도, 연금을 통한 노후소득보장이 뒷받침된다면 기혼 여성의 경제활동 참여와 자녀 수간의 정의 순소득효과가 가능함을 시사한다. 여성의 경제활동 확대, 자녀와 가족에 대한 가치관 변화, 초혼 및 첫 임신 연령 증가의 사회적 추세를 감안할 때 저출산 극복을 위해서는 민간 부문의 일가정 양립 지원의 확대와 국민연금 개선, 직장과 가정내 양성평등 확립이 필요하다. English Abstract: This study examines the effect of employment status on fertility among married female with an emphasis on sectoral differences. Using a pooled data of the 2009-2018 National Survey on Fertility and Family Health and Welfare, the poisson models, logistics models and matching estimations for average treatment effect are conducted. Results show that employment of married female is likely to have negative effects on total number of children and having a second child. Private sector employment, compared to non-employment, has a particularly large negative effect on fertility whereas public sector employment does not. Employment in government sector is found to increase total number of children and the likelihood to have a second child. Strong negative attitudes to children and traditional gender roles within family are likely to reduce fertility. It implies that the relationship between employment status and fertility depends on sectors. Job security, work-life balance support, pension benefit improvement at work as well as gender equality at home would foster both labor force participation of females and fertility through a positive net income effect.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.4054153

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 60

  1. ?? ?? ???, 2020, ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ????. ???? ??? ??, 13, 129
  2. ???, 2014, ???? ????? ????? ?? ?? ??: ??? ???? ??. ????, 37, 125
  3. ???, 2011, ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????. ????????, 26, 5
  4. ??? ???, 2011, 10, 1
  5. ??? ???, 2016, ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??: ?? 25? ????? ??? ?. ??????, 30, 163
  6. ??? ???, 2016, ????? ??? ??? ??: ???? 16? ??? ????. ??????, 36, 118
  7. ??? ???, 2018, ?????? ??? ?? ??, ??????, 18, 61
  8. ??? ???, 2019, ???????? ?? ?? ?? ? ? ? ???? ?? ??. ??: ?????????
  9. ??? ???, 2011, ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ? ????? ? ?? ??. ?????, 34, 139
  10. ??? ??, 2013, ????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ??, 33, 128
  11. ??? ???, 2012, ????? ???? ??? ??? ??. ??????, 32, 5
  12. ??? ???, 2016, ??? ??? ??? ???? ??, 13, 25
  13. ???, 2011, ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??. ?????? ?, 16, 163
  14. 2006, ??????????? ????: ?-?? ??????. ??????, 22, 119
  15. ???, 2020, ????, 21, 2349
  16. ??? ???, 2014, ??? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ??, 85, 69
  17. ???, 2010, ??? ???? ??? ????, ??? ??, 3, 37
  18. ??? ???, 2018, ???? ?? ? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ??: ????? ??? ?. ????, 96, 79
  19. ??? ???, 2016, ????? ????? ??: 2000? ?? ????? ????. ??????, 36, 204
  20. ??? ???, 2017, ???? ??? ????: 2000? ?? ????? ????. ???? ??, 37, 5
  21. ???, 2019, ??? ??? ??? ??? ??: 2000? ?? ????? ????. ??????, 50, 35
  22. ??? ???, 2011, ???? ??? ?? ??: ????? ??? ??? ????? ????. ? ?????, 31, 27
  23. ???, 2008, ??�??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??, 28, 103
  24. ??? ???, 2011, ????? ?? ??? ?? ? ???? ??: ?????? ??? ????. ????, 29, 163
  25. ???, 2015, ???? ???: '?????' vs '?????'. ??? ??, 94, 45
  26. ???, 2020, ???? ????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??. ??????, 40, 361
  27. ???, 2020, ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??: ?????? 1998~2016?
  28. ??? ???, 2012, ??? ??? ???? -??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??. ???? ??, 22, 91
  29. ??? ???, 2013, ????? ????????? ???? ??. ?????, 36, 25
  30. ???, 2012, ??? ??? ?? ?-?? ??????. ???????: ?? ? ????, 18, 111
  31. ???, 2010, ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??. ?????, 49, 33
  32. ??? ???, 2012, ?? ??????? ??????? ????. ??????, 21, 149
  33. ??? ???, 2017, ??? ??? ???? ??: ????? ??? ??? ????. ??????, 37, 318
  34. ??? ???, 2014, ??? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??. ??????, 34, 153
  35. ???, 2014, ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ??. ?????????, 26, 23
  36. ??? ???, 2018, ??????? ??????? ???? ??? ??. ??????, 38, 555
  37. ??? ???, 2021, ??? ?????? ?? ? ????, 41, 123
  38. ???, 2014, ??? ??? ????. ??? ?????? ???????, 1
  39. ??? ???, 2012, ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??. ?????????, 8, 125
  40. ????? ??? ??? ???? ? ???? ?? ? ?? ?? ??, 2017, ?????? ????, 29, 85
  41. ???, 2009, ???? ????? ??? ????, ??????, 48, 1
  42. ???, 2010, ????? ??? ????, ?????, 33, 113
  43. ???, 2010, ??? ??? ????. ??????, 49, 69
  44. ???, 2012, ??? ??? ???? ?? ??. ?????, 35, 31
  45. ???, 2013, ????? ???? ??? ??, 36, 27
  46. ??? ???, 2012, ??????(AHP)? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?? ??, ????????, 26, 55
  47. ??? ???, 2013, ????? ???? ???? ? ??? ??? ??. ??????, 33, 5
  48. ??? ???, 2013, ?????? ??? ??? ??. ?????????, 23, 93
  49. ??? ???, 2013, 15, 39
  50. ???, 2010, ??? ???? ??. ?????, 11, 305
  51. ??? ???, 2011, ?????? ???? ??. ??????, 11, 387
  52. ???, 2013, ??? ??????? ??? ?? ? ??? ??? ?????: ?? ? ????, 33, 361
  53. A Abadie, 2011, Bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 29, 1, 10.1198/jbes.2009.07333 · DOI · Paper page
  54. A Abadie, 2012, Matching on the estimated propensity score
  55. N Ahn, 2002, A note on the changing relationship between fertility and female employment rates in developed countries, Journal of Population Economics, 15, 667, 10.1007/s001480100078 · DOI
  56. J R Goldstein, 2009, The end of "lowest-low" fertility?, Population and Development Review, 35, 663, 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2009.00304.x · DOI · Paper page
  57. K Huttunen, 2016, The effect of job displacement on couples' fertility decisions, Journal of Labor Economics, 34, 403, 10.1086/683645 · DOI
  58. P Mcdonald, 2000, Gender equity, social institutions and the future of fertility, Journal of the Australian Population Association, 17, 1, 10.1007/BF03029445 · DOI
  59. J Sleebos, 2003, Low fertility rates in OECD countries: Facts and policy responses, OECD Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers
  60. J M Wooldridge, 2010, Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Shin, J.
Venue
SSRN Electronic Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7053926779
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
ko
Open access
Locations
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • KDI Central Archives (Korea Development Institute) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Work-Family Balance Challenges
Keywords
married women's labor force participation, number of children, public sector employees, private sector employment, work-family balance, gender attitudes, low fertility, job stability, National Pension Service

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review